The Collective Action of Mongolia’s Women
Having learned about the history of the women’s rights movement in the United States from reading Gail Collin’s “America’s Women” (2003), a broad read that looked at women’s activism beyond the terms of feminism and explored women’s contributions to the creation of democratic rights within the country, I was eager to learn about Mongolian history from the perspective of women. Prior to traveling to Mongolia, I had learned a great deal about the history of the Khaans, beginning from Chinggis Khaan to his children, the previous warlord, Attila the Hun, and of course the spiritual history of Mongolian Buddhism led by the Bogd Khaans.
The focus on a few specific men in the history of Mongolia can be attributed to the long focus on a monarchy-led country—with few leaders exercising great control over the majority. Socialism changed this focus to a degree, investing in educating both women and men; however women’s representation was still limited. Democracy further transformed the social landscape of Mongolia, yet women’s ability to create change has been largely formed within organizations, rather than political representation.
A report commissioned by Mongolian Women’s Fund (MONES)—“The Field of Women’s Organizing in Mongolia” (2009), co-authored by T. Undarya, National Coordinator for the National Network of Mongolian Women’s NGOs (MONFEMNET) and D.Enkhjargal, Director of the National Center against Violence (NCAV)--sheds light on the history of women’s groups in Mongolia.
This article is not intended to provide a comprehensive historical look at the women of Mongolia but rather provide insight into the factors surrounding women’s political and organizational representation in today’s Mongolia.
Socialism Supported
Mongolia’s First Women’s Organization
The recorded history of the women’s movement from an organizational perspective begins during the socialist era the former Soviet Union. This time period invested in social structures that educated both women and men, purporting to be egalitarian. In 1924 the Mongolian Women’s Committee (MWC) was formed under the umbrella of the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party (MPRP). This action was also a symbolic move to transition from Manchu rule’s feudal system. The MPRP evolved in a communistic direction with the MWC assuming a supportive position, aided by Soviet women.
From 1924 to 1940, MWC’s primary goals were increasing literacy levels among women and getting women to attend MPRP’s public meetings. The time period of 1940-1960 was characterized by enduring the war efforts of the time and after that, creating cooperatives, collectives, and social improvements such tailoring, home economics, and local cultural performances (singing and dancing) and better hygiene. MWC brought women further into the development of education, employment opportunities, sciences, and public administration during the period of 1960-1990.
The nineties were a tumultuous time, where the former communist structure was disbanded which affected women’s groups as well as the economy. New political groups were formed, which included pro-democracy Women for Social Progress Movement (WSP) (which was previously the Mongolian Social Democratic Women’s Movement during the transitional late 80’s). The Mongolian National Democratic Party created an offshoot for the women members called Liberal Women’s Brain Pool (LEOS).
Mongolian Women’s Committee, seeking to keep its large network from the days of socialism, rebranded itself as the Mongolian Women’s Federation (MWF), a non-governmental entity with no political party affiliations, hoping to include all women’s groups and invited other groups to join under its umbrella. The newly emerged Mongolian Women Lawyers’ Association, accepted the invitation but the LEOS and WSP—democratic in nature--rejected joining, seeing the MWF as communist in origin.
Women’s Groups Birth Civil Society in Mongolia
Not only were LEOS and WSP the first women’s groups created since the fall of the USSR, they were also the 1st citizen initiated groups not created by the State. Though they were birthed out of political entities, they functioned as independent organizations. Thus the beginning of the civil society movement in Mongolia found itself stewarded by women. Whereas men controlled the political sphere, women focused on civil society initiatives.
“While men gravitated towards political parties and eventually the decision-making positions, women gravitated towards civil society wherein they quickly came to play an active and visible role. So much so that some analysts have referred to the Mongolian civil society as matriarchal” (“The Field of Women’s Organizing in Mongolia,” 2009, pg. 16).
In part, this move was created by the focus that the development community had towards women in Mongolia, seeing them not just as women, but particularly as women from Third World countries and in need of empowerment. Rather than donors consulting with women’s groups on what their unique needs were, women’s organizations, newly formed into NGO’s and in need in financial assistance, framed themselves within the limitations imposed by donors through a lack of financial options. These stipulations favored women’s issues but not political organizations (a requirement for NGO funding), which helped create the predominance of women in the civil society arena.
Though women largely steer the NGO community in Mongolia, as seen through the research of MONFEM, the group is heterogeneous in nature. The mixture reflects a continuum of women within Mongolian society as a whole, as well the perspectives on activism within the country.
Types of Women-Led
Organizations in Mongolia
Women’s organizations were created with varying purposes. Some hold traditional values yet advocate for democracy using different terms, while at the opposite end of the spectrum are feminist-identified groups which actively promote gender equality. All groups have in common goal of working toward the betterment of civil society, ending gender violence, and increasing women’s representation in politics but go about it in a different manner. Conservative women’s groups tend to focus on economic issues such as poverty reduction while the more liberal groups work on gender equality. Yet there is some crossover.
A more in depth breakdown of the differences can be explained thus (“The Field of Women’s Organizing in Mongolia,” 2009, pgs. 59-60):
On the traditional end of the spectrum are groups which are: “Patriarchal organizations and individuals who generally advocate complementary and harmony between men and women. If they support gender equality, it is more likely to mean equivalence in separate spheres seen as naturally and distinctly masculine and feminine.”
Then there are groups which work on women’s issues and who “see themselves as promoting gender equality but stay within a patriarchal paradigm. These actors either support gender equality in only certain spheres or only to moderate degrees. Thus, they may prescribe and even advocate patriarchal gender norms and gender division of labor within the family while strongly supporting gender equality in the economic or the political realm.”
Occupying the middle-ground are groups which work on women’s issues and gender equality yet: “…do not identify themselves as feminist. This group tends to identify itself as working for development and serving all members of the society, without distinguishing anyone by gender.”
Moving further toward the human rights end of the spectrum are groups which: “…do not identify themselves as feminist and do not actively promote gender equality and women’s rights but do, as a matter of principle, support gender equality as an integral element of democracy and human rights. These actors often closely cooperate with the feminist actors, forming tight coalitions such as for civil society development, anti-corruption, democratic governance and human rights and tend to be consciously political.”
At the opposite end of the spectrum are organizations that identify as feminists and “actively promote gender equality as an integral part of democracy and human rights, frame women’s and gender issues explicitly in a human rights framework and consciously challenge patriarchy.”
Shared Goals
Though differences exist, all women’s groups worked together in late 2007 when it was discovered that two conservative members of Parliament introduced a measure to cancel a 2005 amendment which had supported a 30% quota of women in parliament. With surprising speed, Parliament passed this measure and was caught off guard by the great outcry from women’s groups ranging from conservative to more liberal. Eventually, through the lobbying of women’s groups as well as advocates from men’s civil society groups, combined with wide media support, the President vetoed the measure and restored the quota with support from Parliament. Unfortunately, the 30% quota was again revoked by Parliament and does not exist in legislation today. While the outcome was unfortunate, the incident illustrated the strong commonalities shared by women’s groups with divergent belief systems.
The MONES study was commissioned in 2009 to explore ideological differences and similarities for the purpose of understanding the future direction of promoting women’ rights and to expand their representation within Mongolia beyond civil society. Mongolia is not alone in gender inequities in political representation as this persists throughout the world. The 2009 study sheds light on ways that all women’s groups can work together—conservative to more democratic—inviting male participation in examining inequalities in gender representation as a human rights issue, which affects not only women but men.
The focus on a few specific men in the history of Mongolia can be attributed to the long focus on a monarchy-led country—with few leaders exercising great control over the majority. Socialism changed this focus to a degree, investing in educating both women and men; however women’s representation was still limited. Democracy further transformed the social landscape of Mongolia, yet women’s ability to create change has been largely formed within organizations, rather than political representation.
A report commissioned by Mongolian Women’s Fund (MONES)—“The Field of Women’s Organizing in Mongolia” (2009), co-authored by T. Undarya, National Coordinator for the National Network of Mongolian Women’s NGOs (MONFEMNET) and D.Enkhjargal, Director of the National Center against Violence (NCAV)--sheds light on the history of women’s groups in Mongolia.
This article is not intended to provide a comprehensive historical look at the women of Mongolia but rather provide insight into the factors surrounding women’s political and organizational representation in today’s Mongolia.
Socialism Supported
Mongolia’s First Women’s Organization
The recorded history of the women’s movement from an organizational perspective begins during the socialist era the former Soviet Union. This time period invested in social structures that educated both women and men, purporting to be egalitarian. In 1924 the Mongolian Women’s Committee (MWC) was formed under the umbrella of the Mongolian People’s Revolutionary Party (MPRP). This action was also a symbolic move to transition from Manchu rule’s feudal system. The MPRP evolved in a communistic direction with the MWC assuming a supportive position, aided by Soviet women.
From 1924 to 1940, MWC’s primary goals were increasing literacy levels among women and getting women to attend MPRP’s public meetings. The time period of 1940-1960 was characterized by enduring the war efforts of the time and after that, creating cooperatives, collectives, and social improvements such tailoring, home economics, and local cultural performances (singing and dancing) and better hygiene. MWC brought women further into the development of education, employment opportunities, sciences, and public administration during the period of 1960-1990.
The nineties were a tumultuous time, where the former communist structure was disbanded which affected women’s groups as well as the economy. New political groups were formed, which included pro-democracy Women for Social Progress Movement (WSP) (which was previously the Mongolian Social Democratic Women’s Movement during the transitional late 80’s). The Mongolian National Democratic Party created an offshoot for the women members called Liberal Women’s Brain Pool (LEOS).
Mongolian Women’s Committee, seeking to keep its large network from the days of socialism, rebranded itself as the Mongolian Women’s Federation (MWF), a non-governmental entity with no political party affiliations, hoping to include all women’s groups and invited other groups to join under its umbrella. The newly emerged Mongolian Women Lawyers’ Association, accepted the invitation but the LEOS and WSP—democratic in nature--rejected joining, seeing the MWF as communist in origin.
Women’s Groups Birth Civil Society in Mongolia
Not only were LEOS and WSP the first women’s groups created since the fall of the USSR, they were also the 1st citizen initiated groups not created by the State. Though they were birthed out of political entities, they functioned as independent organizations. Thus the beginning of the civil society movement in Mongolia found itself stewarded by women. Whereas men controlled the political sphere, women focused on civil society initiatives.
“While men gravitated towards political parties and eventually the decision-making positions, women gravitated towards civil society wherein they quickly came to play an active and visible role. So much so that some analysts have referred to the Mongolian civil society as matriarchal” (“The Field of Women’s Organizing in Mongolia,” 2009, pg. 16).
In part, this move was created by the focus that the development community had towards women in Mongolia, seeing them not just as women, but particularly as women from Third World countries and in need of empowerment. Rather than donors consulting with women’s groups on what their unique needs were, women’s organizations, newly formed into NGO’s and in need in financial assistance, framed themselves within the limitations imposed by donors through a lack of financial options. These stipulations favored women’s issues but not political organizations (a requirement for NGO funding), which helped create the predominance of women in the civil society arena.
Though women largely steer the NGO community in Mongolia, as seen through the research of MONFEM, the group is heterogeneous in nature. The mixture reflects a continuum of women within Mongolian society as a whole, as well the perspectives on activism within the country.
Types of Women-Led
Organizations in Mongolia
Women’s organizations were created with varying purposes. Some hold traditional values yet advocate for democracy using different terms, while at the opposite end of the spectrum are feminist-identified groups which actively promote gender equality. All groups have in common goal of working toward the betterment of civil society, ending gender violence, and increasing women’s representation in politics but go about it in a different manner. Conservative women’s groups tend to focus on economic issues such as poverty reduction while the more liberal groups work on gender equality. Yet there is some crossover.
A more in depth breakdown of the differences can be explained thus (“The Field of Women’s Organizing in Mongolia,” 2009, pgs. 59-60):
On the traditional end of the spectrum are groups which are: “Patriarchal organizations and individuals who generally advocate complementary and harmony between men and women. If they support gender equality, it is more likely to mean equivalence in separate spheres seen as naturally and distinctly masculine and feminine.”
Then there are groups which work on women’s issues and who “see themselves as promoting gender equality but stay within a patriarchal paradigm. These actors either support gender equality in only certain spheres or only to moderate degrees. Thus, they may prescribe and even advocate patriarchal gender norms and gender division of labor within the family while strongly supporting gender equality in the economic or the political realm.”
Occupying the middle-ground are groups which work on women’s issues and gender equality yet: “…do not identify themselves as feminist. This group tends to identify itself as working for development and serving all members of the society, without distinguishing anyone by gender.”
Moving further toward the human rights end of the spectrum are groups which: “…do not identify themselves as feminist and do not actively promote gender equality and women’s rights but do, as a matter of principle, support gender equality as an integral element of democracy and human rights. These actors often closely cooperate with the feminist actors, forming tight coalitions such as for civil society development, anti-corruption, democratic governance and human rights and tend to be consciously political.”
At the opposite end of the spectrum are organizations that identify as feminists and “actively promote gender equality as an integral part of democracy and human rights, frame women’s and gender issues explicitly in a human rights framework and consciously challenge patriarchy.”
Shared Goals
Though differences exist, all women’s groups worked together in late 2007 when it was discovered that two conservative members of Parliament introduced a measure to cancel a 2005 amendment which had supported a 30% quota of women in parliament. With surprising speed, Parliament passed this measure and was caught off guard by the great outcry from women’s groups ranging from conservative to more liberal. Eventually, through the lobbying of women’s groups as well as advocates from men’s civil society groups, combined with wide media support, the President vetoed the measure and restored the quota with support from Parliament. Unfortunately, the 30% quota was again revoked by Parliament and does not exist in legislation today. While the outcome was unfortunate, the incident illustrated the strong commonalities shared by women’s groups with divergent belief systems.
The MONES study was commissioned in 2009 to explore ideological differences and similarities for the purpose of understanding the future direction of promoting women’ rights and to expand their representation within Mongolia beyond civil society. Mongolia is not alone in gender inequities in political representation as this persists throughout the world. The 2009 study sheds light on ways that all women’s groups can work together—conservative to more democratic—inviting male participation in examining inequalities in gender representation as a human rights issue, which affects not only women but men.
Comments
Post a Comment